History Mekong River Commission

1 history

1.1 mekong committee (1957–1978)
1.2 interim mekong committee (1978–1995)
1.3 mekong river commission (1995–present)

history
mekong committee (1957–1978)

the origins of mekong committee linked legacy of (de)colonialism in indochina , subsequent geopolitical developments. political, social, , economic conditions of mekong river basin countries have evolved dramatically since 1950s, when mekong represented large river left in world, besides amazon, remained virtually unexploited. impetus creation of mekong cooperation regime progressed in tandem drive development of lower mekong, following 1954 geneva conference granted cambodia, laos, , vietnam independence france. 1957 united nations economic commission asia , far east (ecafe) report, development of water resources in lower mekong basin, recommended development tune of 90,000 km of irrigation , 13.7 gigawatts (gw) 5 dams. based largely on recommendations of ecafe, committee coordination on lower mekong basin (known mekong committee) established in september 1957 adoption of statute committee coordination of investigations lower mekong basin. ecafe’s bureau of flood control had prioritized mekong—of 18 international waterways within jurisdiction—in hopes of creating precedent cooperation elsewhere. un’s involvement represented un’s first direct involvement in international river basin planning , 1 of un s earliest spin-offs , organization functioned under aegis of un, executive agent (ea) chosen carrier staff of united nations development programme (undp).

the u.s. government—which feared poverty in basin contribute strength of communist movements—proved 1 of vocal international backers of committee, u.s. bureau of reclamation conducting seminal 1956 study on basin’s potential. 1962 study u.s. geographer gilbert f. white, economic , social aspects of lower mekong development, proved extremely influential, resulting in postponement of (in white’s own estimation) construction of (still unrealized) mainstream pa mong dam, have displaced quarter-million people. influence of united states in committee’s formation can been seen in development studies of general raymond wheeler, former chief of army corps of engineers, role of c. hart schaaf mekong committee’s executive agent 1959 1969, , president lyndon johnson’s promotion of committee having potential dwarf our own t.v.a. however, financial support terminated in 1975 , did not resume decades due embargoes against cambodia (until 1992) , vietnam (until 1994), followed periods of trade restrictions. however, makim argues committee largely unaffected formal or informal u.s. preferences given ambivalence of riparians u.s. technical support, in particular cambodia’s rejection of specific types of assistance. however, fact remains international development agencies have paid bills mekong regime, european (especially scandinavian) nations picking slack left united states, , (to lesser extent) japan.

the mekong committee forceful advocate large-scale dams , other projects, preoccupied facilitating projects. example, 1970 indicative basin plan called 30,000 km of irrigation year 2000 (up 2,130 km) 87 short-term tributary development projects , 17 long-term development projects on mainstream. indicative basin plan crafted largely in response criticisms of committee’s piecemeal approach , declining political support of organization; example, committee had received no funds thailand, biggest contributor, during 1970 fiscal year. completion of 17 projects never intended; rather list meant serve menu international donors, select 9 or 10 of projects. while few of short-term projects implemented, none of long-term projects prevailed in political climate of ensuring decade, included end of vietnam war in 1975. several tributary dams constructed, one—the nam ngum dam (completed 1971), in laos—outside of thailand, electricity sold thailand. according makim, nam ngum intergovernmental project achieved committee.

this period marked efforts expand jurisdiction , mandate of committee between 1958 , 1975, did not receive consent of 4 riparians. however, these efforts culminated, in january 1975, in adoption of 35-article joint declaration of principles utilization of waters of mekong basin sixty-eighth session of mekong committee, prohibiting unilateral appropriation without prior approval , extra-basin diversion without unanimous consent. however, no committee sessions held in 1976 or 1977, no plenipotentiary members had been appointed cambodia, laos, or vietnam—all of experienced regime change in 1975.

interim mekong committee (1978–1995)

mekong river

the rise of khmer rouge made obvious cambodia unable participate in such organization foreseeable future in april 1977 other 3 riparians agreed declaration concerning interim mekong committee, resulted in establishment of interim mekong committee in january 1978. weakened interim organization able study large-scale projects , implement few small-scale projects, exclusively in thailand; instead institutional role of organization shifted largely data collection. 1987 revised indicative basin plan—the high-water mark of interim committee’s activity—scaled ambition of 1970 plan, envisioning cascade of smaller dams along mekong’s mainstream, divided 29 projects, 26 of strictly national in scope. revised indicative basin plan can seen laying groundwork cambodia’s readmission. indeed, supreme national council of cambodia requested readmission in june 1991.

however, cambodia’s readmission largely side-show masked true issue facing riparians: rapid economic growth experienced in thailand relative neighbors had made modest sovereignty limitations imposed regime seem undesirable in bangkok. thailand , other 3 riparians (led vietnam, powerful of remaining 3 state) locked in disagreement on whether cambodia should readmitted under terms of 1957 statute (and more importantly, 1975 joint declaration), thailand preferring negotiate entirely new framework allow planned kong-chi-moon project (and others) proceed without vietnamese veto. article 10 of joint declaration, requiring unanimous consent mainstream development , inter-basin diversion proved main sticking point of cambodia’s readmission, thailand perhaps prepared walk away regime altogether. conflict came head in april 1992 when thailand forced executive agent of committee, chuck lankester, resign , leave country after barring secretariat march 1992 meeting. prompting series of meetings organized undp (which terrified regime in had invested might disappear), culminating in april 1995 agreement on cooperation sustainable development of mekong river basin signed cambodia, laos, thailand, , vietnam in chiang rai, thailand, creating mekong river commission.

since dramatic confrontation of 1992, several seemingly overlapping organizations created, including asian development bank’s greater mekong subregion (adb-gms, 1992), japan’s forum of comprehensive development of indochina (fcdi, 1993), quadripite economic cooperation (qec, 1993), association of south east asian nations , japan’s ministry of international trade , industry’s working group on economic cooperation in indochina , burma (aem-miti, 1994), , (almost finalized) myanmar , singapore’s asean-mekong basin development cooperation (asean-me, 1996).

mekong river commission (1995–present)

the mrc has undergone evolution since 1995. of thorny issues set aside during negotiation of agreement @ least partially resolved implementation of subsequent programmes such water utilization programme (wup) agreed in 1999 , committed implementation 2005. commission’s hierarchical structure has been repeatedly tweaked, in july 2000 when mrc secretariat restructured. 2001 work programme has largely come viewed shift project-oriented focus emphasis on better management , preservation of existing resources. on paper, work programme represents rejection of ambitious development schemes embodied 1970 , 1987 indicative basin plans (calling no mainstream dams) , shift holistic rather programmatic approach. in part, these changes represent response criticism of mrc’s failure undertake regional-scale project or region-level focus.

2001 saw major shift in mrc—at least on paper—when committed role learning organization emphasis on livelihoods of people in mekong region. in same year annual report emphasized importance of bottom-up solutions , voice of people directly affected. similarly, 2001 mrc hydropower development strategy explicitly disavowed promotion of specific projects in favor of basin-wide issues. in part, these shifts mark retreat past project failures , recognition mrc faces multiple, , more lucrative, competitors in project arena.